It’s rather fascinating to compare members of the Weathermen to Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen-turned-terrorist who is the subject of the leaked white paper defining the parameters for drone strikes against American citizens abroad. The Washington Post reports:

The U.S.-born Muslim cleric played key roles in the Fort Hood, Tex., shooting rampage in 2009 that killed 13 people, as well as last year’s foiled attempt to put bombs on cargo planes bound to the United States. His words led a young Nigerian to attempt to blow up a jetliner over Detroit, and inspired an unemployed Pakistani man to drive a bomb-laden vehicle into the heart of New York’s Times Square. … So effective was his message that the CIA last year put him on the agency’s official target list, making him the first American citizen to be designated for death, wherever he could be found, without judicial process.

The CIA targeted Awlaki and in 2011 he was killed by a drone strike in Yemen. The DOJ white paper defended such targeted killings of U.S. citizens, asserting

the inherent right of the United States to national self defense under international law, Congress’s authorization of the use of all necessary and appropriate military force against this enemy, and the existence of an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida under international law.

The paper laid out a three-part test for killing a U.S. citizen who is “an operational leader continually planning attacks against U.S. persons and interests” and who is outside the United States:

(1) A high-level official of the U.S. government must determine that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;

(2) A capture operation would be infeasible–and those conducting the operation would continue to monitor whether capture becomes infeasible; and

(3) Such an operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles.

What does any of this have to do with domestic terrorists like Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers?

Sure they would if they had the capability, but their long term solution would be to put us in camps. 25 million was the estimate Ayers made that would have to be liquidated. That was over a quarter century ago, so I wold like to know what his revised estimate would be today.

The situation is a bit different, in that the countries in the MidEast can’t/won’t shoot back at our drones, while Cuba definitely could and back then would have. The Obama Administration (and the Bush Admin before) have benefited from the weakness of these countries where the terrorists hide. The leader(s) in question don’t want to respond to American air strikes, because they want to buy our goodies on the one hand, and they don’t want to advertise the impotence of their defense establishment on the other. Instead they try and keep quiet about the whole thing, while Obama continues his remote-control warfare, where no one (or at least no American citizens) is killed or injured, and we “take out” high-profile terrorist leaders, or anyone who happens to get in the way.

You misunderstand the technology of drone warfare. They are virtually undetectable and the “4th-World” technology of Cuba could not defend against them. I suggest we drone those useless misanthropes while they’re vomiting their propoganda at Northwestern and U. of Chicago respectively

Please, please, please stop referring to Ayers’ current employer as “The University of Chicago.” He is a professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago Circle Campus. There is a vast, vast difference. UofC doesn’t even have an Education Dept. Just sayin’.

Another possible answer might be, “Ummm, have you seen the picture of me shooting skeet? Terrible little anti-amerikan creatures, they should all be eliminated. In fact, they are quite high on my drone “extreme prejudice” list.”

The movements of the 60s and early 70s was considered as ‘contained’ even considering how large it was nationally and for reasons of many wealthy and influential parents kids being involved, the old congressional select committee on subversive activities began to turn a blind eye. Had they not, many a promenient americans kids would have been tried and convicted of many serious crimes against the state, applying the old statutes. By the mid 70s, the congressional select committees on subversive activities was retired to the history books. Only select individuals with outstanding crimes of violence would be pursued and charged and I assume most know the outcomes of that effort. Since then and to present, the same principles are applied with the exceptions of espionage and the more recent Bush era defining domestic terrorism.

So no, no president of either party would today, put a death bounty on the head of any weathermen types. They would instead, be sought like any other domestic criminal and when captured, be tried for the crimes under exsisting criminal codes in whatever, the appropriate criminal court system just like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were. A U.S. citizen leaving the country to join forces with a decalred enemy in time of war, against the United States, is quite another circumstance!

I don’t think the question of the article was on whether drones would be used on them domestically, but rather would drones be used against them if they successfully fled the country. There are cases of leftist radicals from the 60s and 70s, including those already guilty of murder, fleeing to Cuba and living out their lives there. Of course that was before the days of drones, but asking if Obama would apply his standards of who is to be killed evenly is a very prescient question. It is no stretch to assume that enemy combatants would be treated very differently on the basis of their ideology. Look at how Holder summarily dismissed voter intimidation charges against the new black panthers who showed up brandishing clubs outside of polls on election day. Would they have done the same for a bunch of Neo-nazis or KKK members under the exact same circumstances? I think not. Look at the difference in reaction, both in media and in government, to the TEA party and Occupy Wall Street. Government agencies actually released notices to law enforcement that people who were members of the TEA party were potential terrorists to be treated as such. This despite the fact that the TEA parties were all law abiding and nonviolent, while OWS actively sought, and got, confrontations with the police by deliberately engaging in illegal activities. Just look up videos of some of the OWS riots. Actual terrorists from within the Occupy movement were convicted of attempting to blow up a bridge, yet I never recall a government agency releasing statements that all OWS members were to be treated as potential terrorists.

If we look at the way the Obama crowd runs the government in general, handing out money and favors to friends, punishing their enemies, they could best be summed up as petty thugs. Expecting such people, or anyone for that matter, to evenly, consistently, and fairly use the power of life and death is a pretty big leap of faith. I would fully expect them, given an identical set of circumstances, to go easy on those with whom they have ideological sympathies while unleashing hell on those they’re ideologically opposed to.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but knowing a little bit about the movements of the 60s and 70s,I can assure you that they crossed political lines of the times. The GOP begin to lose a good amount of parent and their young adult children due to Nixons actions of bombing into Laos seen as expanding the war
and especially after the Kent State event.

History will eventually not be very kind to the U.S. and UKs containment and nation building strategies formulated post WWII and still in place today. In 1947 the strategy began meddling into governments of the ME and especially, Iran. The U.S. and the French were continually engaged in ‘Vietnam’ and then Korea for which most should know the outcomes of each. I suspect that within the next 50 years, history will have a better assessment of the strategies and their long running failures at a huge monetary and lives lost cost.

I find it rather hard to understand why ‘constitutionalists’ seemingly find such strategies and war, something for which to hang their hats on as a matter of being consitutional patriots. If they truly understood the strategies, they would have far more insight into how a global economy came into being, how the world court came into being and the continuous creep of a global governance. They would also have a better understanding of how the new Russia and China pose a great threat to the strategies long term goals going into the future. And finally, they would come to have a far better understanding of how ‘external’ directorates control then economy and foreign relations that are thought
by most (quite erroneously) to be that of our political parties. The ignorant,
who run and get elected to federal office soon find out that their powers are essentially reduced to dealing with the consequences of the strategies for which they have no control over that overlap into out domestic issues and governance.

Of course, the people will continue to bicker over all the irrelevant and today,
strive to divide the nation over them. Not a pretty picture for future generations.

Containment and it’s subsidiary strategy, nation building, came about because the Soviets didn’t go home after World War Two was over, when the other Allies demobilized very rapidly. They kept a huge tank army in Eastern Europe and immediately began subverting the legitimate governments of those countries they had “liberated”. They provided training, money, manpower, and diplomatic support for Communist subversives all over the world, to include some American would-be Ceaușescus.

Some tigers you just can’t dismount right away. Ignoring murderous Communist tyranny would have been a very bad idea. And it’s good that we won the Seventy Years War, instead of them. The cost could have been very much higher, bad as we might think it now.

Speaking of would-be would-be Ceaușescus, it occurs to me that there are quite a few countries where critters like William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn would not now be alive.

The USSR was only a very tiny footnote in the multi-faceted nation building strategies. An alternative to the spread ‘communism’ was centric to nation building. An alternative of democratic societies, spread of Christianity, free market global economic development, a global currency, Global banking and finance and centralized global governance and judiciary. A new world redefinition of global imperialism. It continues today as the core strategies of the U.S. and the UK. After more than sixty years of such strategies, the ROI hasn’t proven to be very good!

Where did you read a defense of the Vietnam war in my comments? When I said “leftist radicals” I wasn’t talking about some run of the mill hippies who dropped acid or burned the flag and spit on returning troops, I was talking about the actual terrorists who committed murder in pursuit of their aim of overthrowing the US government. Remember that the only difference between Bill Ayers and Timothy McVeigh is one of competence, not intent. Many of his ilk planted bombs, conducted bank heists and jail breaks, and otherwise engaged in what today we would call terrorism. Some were just straight up communists, some were (black) racial supremacists, but they all fell under the umbrella “leftist” and the ones who could flee the US to Castro’s Cuba were welcomed with open arms, where they continued to plot and encourage terrorist acts and the overthrow of the US government. In terms of being “enemy combatants” they were hardly different from the Muslim terrorists of today. Would Obama drone them? I doubt it. Especially not if they were the children of some well connected wealthy family.

Finally !!! It would be interesting to find some of B D’s old rants calling for armed insurrection at Kent State to play beside the 0′s demands for gun restrictions. Where is the justice ? McVeigh – terror bomber – executed ; Ayers and Dohrn- terror bombers – hosted the political debut of BHO.
If no drone case can be brought to the USSC, then Congress could create a new court ?
LBJ went from a solid Presidential bet to political hara-kiri in 60 days. Is there a MENA Tet in 0bama’s future ? GBUSA

Obama sending drones anywhere to fire upon The Weathermen would be a case of fratricide.

Please show me where Obama is divorced from the political philosophies of Ayers & Dohrn – anywhere.

Mr. Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist responsible for many crimes (you can find the list just about anywhere – no need to repeat) who he himself declared to be “guilty as hell, free as a bird”. He has left his violent early years behind and has been poisoning public education for the last quarter century. Did you ever wonder why your public schools are so awful? Teachers unions (another far-left cesspool) are certainly deserving of plenty of blame, but the curriculum advanced by people like Ayers bear responsibility too.

I would no more break bread with this maggot Ayers than I would with Osama bin Laden yet our “president’ had no such qualms. Barry Soetoro is a close personal friend of Ayers going way, way back in Chicago. His protestations to the contrary are bald faced lies.

When I make the charge that Barry Soetoro is a traitor, I mean exactly that. I am not making rhetorical flourishes. He is engaging in treason with every act of his “presidency”; his entire raison d’etre is to bring this Republic to ruin, and he has just about succeeded.

There has never been a more repugnant man to hold the mantle of “American” in all the 237 years of this country’s existence – and he is our ‘president’.

Speaking about the Uganda bombings, the president said, “What you’ve seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself. They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains.”

Exactly, Barry <3 the Islamists, maybe not as much as the true believers of the weathermen, but he still feels a certain kinship with them. I have no doubt he'd rather be blowing up "bitter clingers", but the middle east is the sandbox he has to play in right now, so he just has to make due for now. The important thing for him is not that he gets to kill a few men whom he probably would've hugged in his younger days, but rather that he gets to feel like a god and expand the precedent to the point that maybe one day he can use drones domestically. He probably justifies it by figuring that each muslim he blows up today is a worthy sacrifice because he helps set the precedent that will allow him to drop the hammer on the Americans tomorrow.

Also notice that all of these drone strikes are made against countries that cannot really retaliate against us. If an Islamic terrorist was walking the streets of Moscow or Shanghai, would Obama still order a drone strike on that individual? Would Russia or China tolerate such an attack on their soil? And somehow I don’t think either China or Russia would be very sympathetic to our request for having a known terrorist extradited to the United States. Remember, Russia did absolutely nothing to stop Saddam Hussein’s acts of terror and Russia certainly didn’t help us in trying to assasinate Hussein. And when dealing with all the dictators and thugs at the United Nations, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. So I also doubt you’ll get much help from larger third-world countries, like Egypt. Are we willing to hit Egypt with a missile strike if we discover that the Muslim Brotherhood is protecting a radical Islamic terrorist? Are we going to pick a fight with the largest Muslim nation in Africa?

You may see more and more terrorists seeking refuge in larger countries like Russia, China, or even Egypt, if for any other reason just to avoid being hit by a missile from a drone. So what does Obama do then, go after them with drones? I doubt it. Obama isn’t about to risk a war with a major nation just because they are hiding a terrorist that killed Americans. Bombing Pakistan is one thing. Bombing Russia is another.

Are we willing to bomb Egypt if they support a terrorist strike , the way Reagan was willing to bomb Tripoli.

I think yes. If we are consistent. We can offer the same fig leaf the turks offer when they bomb terrorists in Iraq. We are just going after the terrorists and just assume the government couldn’t have any complaints.

If we keep it to killing terrorists and not spiral off into changing the world for the better it sounds like a policy. Our enemies will know what they cannot do, and better they will know if they follow the rules that we won’t kill them too.

No he wouldn’t because they are allies. You..on the other hand, seem to be an enemy of the state. Keep an eye on the sky. Hellfires have a launch signature;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcLVg2NgPNw
Practice your sprinting. ALL guided weapons have what is called an ‘acquisition cone’. If you can get outside that cone, the missile no longer guides because it cannot “see” you.
Not sure what the AGM-114 is. Normal is about 2 degreees, at least for SAM’s and ATGM’s.
If you can sprint 20 meters in about 4 seconds, change vectors, then another 50 in under 8, you can generate a miss…..maybe. It beats standing there and watching the grim reaper ride down your throat.

So the US has some drones overhead, when Jane Fond sits down at that North Vietnamese anti aircraft gun. From nowhere, a Hellfire screams in and vaporizes her. Or better yet, hits just to the left of the mount she’s seated in – not killing her, but reducing her to a badly scarred and burned paraplegic – as an object lesson. Too bad we didn’t have the technology at that time.

Bernardine Dohrn is in agreement with members of the NRA and gun supporters in general.
Retired Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, has said, “We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have.” Representative Dickey is in favor of overthrowing the government of the United States by force and violence.

This proposition needn’t be hypothetical, we can put this to the test right now. Cuba is currently providing asylum to another U.S.citizen and domestic terrorist Joanne Chesimard. So how about it, let the drones fly.

I think this could be done, but to be sure it may be necessary to take out all of Chicago as well as the suburbs. But if their bodies can’t be positively identified within say, twenty minutes or so, it might be best if we did the same thing to New York, San Francisco, LA, DC, and any other large metropolitan area that is colored blue on election day.

Well let me say that the activities of the weather underground (wu)were every bit as violent as depited above. I was there working for the FBI and know from first hand observations what this group of domestic terrorist wanted to accomplish. I believe that the bomb that killed Police Officer Brian McDonnell at the Park police Station in San Francisco was a wu attack. This was corroborated by other sources besides myself and Our current President is friends with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn who were leaders of this group of terrorists. The question asked is legitimate, “will you Mr. President use drone strikes to kill weathermen in Cuba” and by the way, how about black liberation army fugitives hiding in Cuba?

I was still a young child during most of that time period so I didn’t understand what was going on around me. Reading the FBI files now I realize what a dangerous time that was. I grew up 1/2 hour from Kent State and have spoken to parents whose kids were on campus the day of the shootings. My neighbor’s daughter was there and of course, there were no cell phones back then. Her daughter didn’t come home until very late that night. She had no idea if her daughter was one of the students killed that day until after midnight. She’s in her 90′s now and thinking about it still terrifies her.

The SDS and Weathermen (including Dohrn and Ayers) were frequent visitors to Kent State and helped to radicalize it. Jerry Rubin had told them,“Until you are ready to kill your parents, you’re not ready to change this country.” In 1969, Dohrn told students there to arm for revolution.

When I heard a Cleveland City Councilman (who admitted to being a 70′s radical) tell Occupy Cleveland members last year that a “permanent revolution” was a good thing, I realized this was the same recycled movement.

The morally correct answer is that Americans serving in the Weather Underground or other domestic terrorist groups should be treated the same as those serving in Al Qaida.

But, of course, that doesn't mean they will be. Some of these groups are fashionable, especially within the Democratic Party. They will certainly not be condemned or, if they are, it will be with a wink. Groups that are on the Left are inherently embraced by their fellow Leftists, particularly the current Occupier of the White House.

[Forgive me if this appears twice, I'm having challenges with the new "improved" system.]

2 years ago

Report Abuse

2 years agoEditLink To Comment• Report Abuse

This comment has been reported.
Click here
to view it anyway.

View All

... (show more)

Update CommentCancel

5 Trackbacks to “President Obama, Would You Send a Drone to Cuba to Kill the Weathermen?”